Talk:U.S. Route 70 in Arizona/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ToThAc (talk · contribs) 17:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I believe I'm ready to start my review.

• Criterion 1A: ✓ Pass conditionally. The lead and route description are for the most part fine. The mini-lead to the history section could use some streamlining in order to concisely state in just one sentence that US 70 and US 180 coincidentally swapped routes west of the Rockies (specifically Deming, New Mexico). The rest of the history section, however, is excellently written, and don't even let me begin on the junction list.
• Criterion 1B: ✓ Pass for the most part. I'm not sure if saying US 70 and US 180 have an "unusual" routing history turns it into weasel wording, but then again, I'm not sure if there's any better term to describe it, or if it's even necessary to say. (US 20, for example, travels south of US 30 west of Caldwell, Idaho because 20 wasn't originally intended to be a coast-to-coast route.) Everything else is fine.
• Criterion 2A: ✓ Pass. Nothing to say here.
• Criterion 2B: ✓ Pass. A very minor nitpick, but perhaps in instances where multiple sources verify a single statement, perhaps...arrange the citations in numerical order?
• Criterion 2C: ✓ Pass. Pretty sure this one was difficult to fail.
• Criterion 2D: ✓ Pass. Copyvio detector reads at 7.4%, which is an excellent standing.
• Criterion 3A: ✓ Pass. Nothing really stands out here.
• Criterion 3B: ✓ Pass with uncertainty. The history section on the old US 70 should instead be used in the inevitable U.S. Route 180 in Arizona and New Mexico since it's much more relevant to that specific topic area while stating in a brief paragraph that US 70 used to be what is now US 180, but everything else seems relevant.
• Criterion 4: ✓ Pass. I doubt there was any trouble with this one.
• Criterion 5: ✓ Pass obviously.
• Criterion 6: ✓ Pass. No problems here.

Hold

@MatthewAnderson707: So yeah, I'd definitely endorse this article for GA status, though I'm putting it on hold for now. Only issues I see are the overly wordy mini-lead to the history section, as well as the actual individual relevance of the pre-1935 US 70 history sections, of which both are relatively minor issues. ToThAc (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: Thank you for the review! I went through and redid the history section a bit, eliminating the giant section on the original US 70. I took your advice on that and saved that section for a future US 180 in Arizona article. Thankfully, that will save me a ton of time from having to write all of that over again when it's ready. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 01:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@MatthewAnderson707: I think you've done a very good job on this article. Congratulations! ToThAc (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm really happy this article has reached GA standards! -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 18:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)